Acker is an 84-year-old Ronald Reagan appointee, and this episode provides considerable insight into the kind of corrupt federal judges "The Gipper" gave us.

Acker granted summary judgment for the University of Alabama Board of Trustees and various individual UAB defendants, even though he had allowed no discovery. I showed that Acker's ruling could not be made under the law because a non-moving party (me, in this case) must be given an opportunity to collect evidence through the discovery process in order to counter the summary-judgment motion.

A transcript of a hearing in the case shows that Acker said he was going to treat a UAB motion as one for summary judgment and that he would have to give me an opportunity to conduct discovery before making any ruling. That hearing was on December 10, 2010, but less than two months later--on January 28, 2011--Acker granted summary judgment, effectively dismissing my case.

An appeal is pending before the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, and Acker's finding will have to be overturned on multiple grounds--assuming the actual law is applied. But for now, the stunning point is this: We have a public document that proves a federal judge knowingly ruled contrary to law in a case before him. It involves federal issues (free speech, age/gender discrimination), plus a state-law issue (defamation)--not to mention the fact that my livelihood is on the line.

Even if you don't give a rip about my well being, these are matters of profound importance--and everyone's tax dollars support a federal court that is supposed to ensure that fundamental constitutional rights are protected. And yet, we have proof that a federal judge is treating the entire proceeding as an exercise in theater of the absurd.

How do we know that? Well, you can follow along with me on a brief road trip through a 29-page transcript that should shock the conscience of anyone who believes in democratic principles. (The full transcript can be read at the end of this post.)

The transcript is filled with inanities from beginning to end, showing that the 84-year-old Acker isn't fit to manage a corner lemonade stand, much less a federal courtroom. But we will focus on just a few items.

On pages 15 and 16, Acker addresses UAB attorney Lisa Huggins:

THE COURT: In your case, I'm going to convert it to a motion for summary judgment and put a submission order out, which would require him to controvert anything that you say in your motion for summary judgment that is dispositive in the way of present condition. He is right that there has been no scheduling order, there has been no discovery.

So we've established--through Acker's words, not mine--there was no scheduling order and no discovery of any sort. Why did Acker have to treat UAB's motion as a motion for summary judgment? Huggins answers that herself, on page 22 and 23:

MS. HUGGINS: With respect to the individual defendants, we've filed extensive evidence in support of the motion to dismiss or summary judgment on behalf of all of those individual defendants.

THE COURT: So you're, in effect, joining me in converting that into a summary judgment motion?

Huggins tried to back herself out of that corner, but even a judge as bad as Acker knew that couldn't fly. After all, he already had stated the issue clearly on page 19, addressing points I had raised:

I think he has a point, that the alternative motion to dismiss should be converted to a motion for summary judgment, which might occasion some right by him to invoke Rule 56(f)--I don't know whether he is familiar with that or not; I think maybe he is--which would allow him to poke around into your people to some degree before we get to that.

I invoked the protection of Rule 56(d), just as Acker said I could, but he proceeded to ignore it--granting summary judgment when his own words show that he knew that could not be done.

What happened between the hearing on December 10, 2010, and Acker's ruling on January 28, 2011? I can think of only one answer--someone with connections to the federal courthouse in Birmingham took steps to make sure that a fix was in. That would almost have to be one or more persons in the legal community, and UAB officials surely know what went on.

That points to obstruction of justice, conspiracy, and perhaps other federal crimes. After all, we now know that Judge William M. Acker Jr. was not just senile or incompetent when he ruled contrary to law against me. His own words show that he knew the correct law; he just refused to apply it.

That points to corruption of the ugliest sort--the kind that probably should send any number of people to federal prison.

10 comments:

It's more practical to pray for his death. An 84-year-old federal judge, who has a lifetime appointment and apparently enjoys having people kiss his nasty ring, isn't likely to retire--and no one can make him. My personal prayer is that the FBI investigates and exposes Acker for the criminal that he is. That's unlikely to happen, but I will pray for it nonetheless. I would love to have a front-row seat at the trial. Better yet, I would love to testify. Acker is a disgrace to our constitution.

NO ONE SHOULD BE APPOINTED TO ANY JOB FOR LIFE.. You know yourself on some things you are not as sharp as you were 30 years ago. 84.. TOO DAMN OLD to be deciding peoples future. HE NEEDS TO BE RETIRED.x

I know that UAB and the people over there are very anxious about this,and I want to accommodate them,too,but I think I'm going to eliminate the anxiety for me between now and Christmas by giving him at least that much time.

***

That exactly why the FBI will not investigate & expose the criminal conspiracy: THE SCHNAUZER MIGHT HAVE A CASE!!

It's been my experience dealing with the federal judiciary---- since this nation has a "Constitution & rule of law" what are the best ways to circumvent these nasty little national indulgences.

Oh, there's no doubt they would find a criminal case against Acker just on what he's done in my case. And if he's done it that easily against one litigant, you have to figure he has done it with others. The man is a public menance--and taxpayers have been paying his salary for 25-plus years. Disgusting.

There is nothing to say that Acker won't be there 10 years from now--drooling on himself and soiling his Depends, while he cheats one litigant after another--because he's crooked, no matter how old he gets.

Reminds me of the SOB who decide my divorce a while back...same crud! Nothing I said made a difference. He had to finally resign a short time ago because of some shady financial donations to some college in Georgia.Name was Doug Pullen in Columbus, GA!

Glad Pullen got nailed. We need a major cleansing of the judiciary in this country, at both state and federal levels. Federal judges are every bit as bad as state judges, and they have a fraction of the case load. Keep this in mind: Pullen was screwing you, and probably others, with your own money! Taxpayers pay these guys to violate the Constitution. It might be the biggest unreported racket in the U.S.